In his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins devises a population of birds to explain reciprocal altruism. In this population, there is a deadly disease that is spread by ticks. The birds can groom themselves to remove ticks, and thus protect themselves from disease, in all but one spot—the top of the head. On that spot, they must rely on other birds to remove their ticks. Thus, for the birds in this population to survive, they must work together. If they don’t, and some birds decide to “cheat” by having their ticks removed by “suckers,” but not reciprocating, the population will suffer. As fewer and fewer birds help their peers remove ticks, the population will become overrun with disease.

Given the direct benefit to the individual of immunity against disease, vaccination, is not completely altruistic. However, immunization provides a significant benefit to society. One can liken a human newborn, or a person who cannot get vaccinated, to a vulnerable bird with ticks on the top of its head. As individuals, we cannot fully protect these people from infectious disease, and instead we rely on herd immunity. If society is made up mostly of “suckers” that have expended the energy and cost to get vaccinated, then the vulnerable will be protected due to the absence or reduction of disease transmission. But if a significant percentage of individuals decides against vaccination, for one reason or another, we may lose herd immunity, and infectious disease will spread.

Unfortunately, we are beginning to see signs of this phenomenon, due in part to parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the fear that it could cause autism—the now completely debunked message delivered by Andrew Wakefield in 1998.

In 2010, Idaho was ranked last in the country for routine childhood vaccination rates. Low rates have been a trend in this state for the last several years, and are likely due to limited access to vaccines as well as vaccine refusal. According to the National Immunization Survey, Idaho has only a 63.7 percent vaccination rate for the early childhood vaccination schedule (aged 19-35 months). These rates of vaccination are nowhere near the 85-95 percent levels required for herd immunity protection against most diseases. Unfortunately this means many children in Idaho are running the risk of diseases like pertussis, measles, and meningitis. And Idaho is not alone; other states, such as Montana, New Jersey, and Utah, also report low rates for early routine vaccinations. These rates are lower than some developing countries, and while overall childhood vaccination in the United States remains reassuringly high (levels at 90 percent or higher on average), these pockets of vulnerability are very concerning to public health officials.

Indeed, we are already seeing evidence of disease reemergence. In 2000, there was no endemic transmission of measles in United States, and this disease was declared eliminated. However, measles is one of the most transmissible diseases on earth, requiring vaccination rates of higher than 95 percent to achieve herd immunity.And in 2011, the country had more than 200 cases, many of which were imported from Europe, which is currently experiencing large measles outbreaks, with over 26,000 cases in 36 countries, as reported by the World Health Organization. Whooping cough is also on the rise. From January to October 2010, there were 455 infants hospitalized in California and 10 deaths due to Bordetella pertussis, the highest number of cases in over 60 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Parental refusal has contributed to this increase in disease transmission. It is clear that Andrew Wakefield’s work, though it has been thoroughly debunked and removed from the literature, is far from forgotten.

As a scientist I recognize that we are not always the best communicators. When it comes to vaccines, this is particularly relevant. It is not enough to make safe vaccines that protect people from disease; we must convince the public that they are safe and effective. This may be a tall order given the current cultural climate, but one that is imperative for immunization programs to be effective. Showing data and statistics that refute claims by detractors does not do much to stop the spread of fear about vaccine safety. However, there are real lives that are saved by vaccines, and information about vaccine-preventable diseases may be the best way to inform. Among the many differences between us and the tick-pickers is that we are capable of seeing the future and the need to protect the population. Even if this means we have to go against individualism and act a little bit like a sucker.

Juliette K. Tinker is an assistant professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Boise State University.

Add a Comment

Comments

"Herd immunity, or the protection of individuals who are not vaccinated due to generally high vaccination rates within a population, does not currently exist in many pockets of the US." And just why do you think these unvaccinated people exist in the first place? Because some people would be harmed by vaccination and we will never know who all these people are, so people who forgoe vaccinations because of this are not "suckers"Â nor do theyÂ "cheat."Â They are doing it for their own health, not out of negligence.Your bird analogyÂ is a bird-brained one.

There's a significant difference between people who are too young to have been vaccinated yet or medically can't get vaccinations due to allergies or other conditions, and people who choose not to have their children vaccinated based on junk pseudoscience and the scare tactics of woo-peddlars.The people who can't get vaccinations, especially newborns, depend on the herd immunity provided by people who can get them.

"There's a significant difference between people who are too young to have been vaccinated yet or medically can't get vaccinations due to allergies or other conditions, and people who choose not to have their children vaccinated based on junk pseudoscience and the scare tactics of woo-peddlars."

Actually, the people who you say are in the latter category, actually fit into the former category. I would think someone such as yourself who finds differences where there are none would be able to recognized just how bird-brained the author's bird analogy was, but I guess I was wrong.

You clearly did not read my entire comment, where I write "nor do they 'cheat,'" which is what the article accused them of doing. They are not vaccinated, because as you say, they cannot be for various reasons.Â Don't tell me I've misunderstood the bird analogy and then go on buying into its bird-brained logic.

"Unfortunately, we are beginning to see signs of this phenomenon, due in part to parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the fear that it could cause autismâ€”the now completely debunked message delivered by Andrew Wakefield in 1998."

Completely debunked? According to whom, Ms. Tinker? Beware, in Science, of making broad/sweeping statements such as these, or you are destined to look like an idiot, eventually. "Everyone knows the earth is flat." "Everyone knows global warming is a myth." "Everyone knows that - according to the Special Theory of Relativity - it is impossible for particles to exceed the speed of light." Oops...

There is absolutely no consensus that vaccines are harmless. Do they cause autism...well, in my estimation, the jury is still out. Are there serious problems with vaccination, and should everyone be mandated to receive them? Hmm...now, that is a dangerous idea.

Indeed, far too many who have been vaccinated experience symptoms far in excess of acceptable risk. Then there are those among us who never receive vaccines and never experience the annual flu-like symptoms of others who routinely vaccinate. Then there are those who never vaccinate and never succumb to other "virus-transmitted" diseases. This is not anecdote, Ms. Tinker, it is fact...however, uncomfortable it may be for you to acknowledge.

"As a scientist," you have a responsibility to avoid misrepresenting the facts. Your opinions are not Science. Your thoughts and views are your thoughts and views. Please refrain from equating your ideas with scientific fact.

Despite the oft touted "studies have failed to show a link between vaccines and autism" (which is NOT the same thing as "there is no link'), The US Sec of HHS agreed to pay Poling and Banks for their vaccine-caused autism avoiding their well documented medical cases establishing prcedence which could be used by other families seeking redress under the NVICP.Â When scientific research is funded, overseen, conducted and published by the corporations which will profit from a positive outcome, you can be assured that studies showing adverse events will NOT be published, thereby making meta-analysies self-fulfilling.

I find it truly incredible that, in one of the countries that USED to be a poster child for the benefits of vaccination, people can argue as you do against its benefits. Â People who are, almost certainly, protected themselves against the diseases that are now coming back into one of the more advanced societies on the planet, because of the growing tide of "vaccine denialism". Â

Protected, Dr Jonas,Â because your parents almost certainly vaccinated you against polio, smallpox, diphtheria, and other diseases that people used to die of in distressingly large numbers. Â The only reason you can be as smug as you appear is because your society is still largely protected, and you don't easily see the downside of low vaccination rates - but you will, if this anti-vaccination trend increases.

And the pity is that it will be your children, and not you, who will be the ones directly affected.

Dr. Moses,it 's funny how you try to invalidate Dr Tinker's (and yes, she is a real PhD) column because, according to you, she is misrepresenting facts, and then you use completely anecdotal evidence (i.e. true in only one case or two, but completely invalid from an statistical perspective) to try to make your case. Using your logic (which is a complete fallacy) I could say that vaccines are not only good to protect against diseases, they also protect against tornadoes and lightning strikes. How you ask, well... I have followed all recommended vaccination schedules, and I have NEVER being struck by lightning or run over by a tornado. You cannot deny those "facts" either.

There is no evidence that foregoing vaccination will be harmful.Â The evidence is that the diseases that are prevented will be harmful and will cause death or permanent disability in some children.Â Unfortunately we are seeing the same sort of mentality that rejects scientific evidence.Â Also we are seeing the way in which personal paradigms trump evidence.

Science education has long struggled with the problem of paradigms.Â Now we know that the standard educational practices which rely on conventional lectures do not have much effect on embedded paradaigms.Â The Physics Education Research (PER) groups have come up with effective strategies for helping students overcome these paradigms with regard to physical laws.Â So similar strategies need to be used in the other sciences.Â In addition students need to be made aware of how their paradigms may be at odds with evidence, and that they need to change their paradigms.

So in the end it comes down to not just teaching science facts, but teaching students how to think more like scientists and examine evidence.Â Cognitive psychology has shown how paradigms block understanding of evidence.Â People make up arguments that have no factual basis when their paradigms are confronted, so just presenting evidence does not work.

In addition the state may need to step in.Â Enforcing proper behavior to achieve the common good is sometimes necessary.Â Examples of this are making people obey the traffic regulations, enforcing cleanliness in the food industry, or mandatory quarantine of people suffering from dangerous highly contagious diseases.Â If an adult wishes to avoid a vaccination that is their right, but children need to be protected by society.Â If an adult is advised to get a vaccination when traveling, but they contract a potentially deadly disease, they can be refused re-entry to the US or quarantined.

Differential response to vaccines is a fact. Some do fine; others have more pronounced reactions. It's also a fact that we don't know why certain diseases (autism) and conditions (allergies, auto-immune syndromes) are apparently on the rise. Something in the environment is likely to blame. Nothing has been debunked. So when someone from the 'scientific community' comes out with these rubber stamp statements, it makes parents all the more distrustful. Parents aren't stupid rubes--they want facts and honesty, not patronizing platitudes.

It will be a truly ironic development if developing countries start refusing access at airports and borders, to people arriving fromÂ theÂ US and Europe who do not have the appropriateÂ vaccinationÂ certificates.

Ironic - and welcome, because there have already been cases of travellers from Europe reimporting measles into countries in less developed regions from which it had been eradicated as an endemic disease, and who really did not want it back.

Vaccines have been hailed, quite rightly, as one of the most effective means of prevention of infectious disease that we have developed. Â And unfortunately, the fact that an entire generation has grown up without the shadow of smallpox, poliomyelitis, whooping cough and measles has made them so risk-averse that the minor effects of vaccination (and yes, there are meta-analyses showing that the risks ARE minor) are persuading them to avoid it entirely.

Including facts about vaccination in school curricula, having experts talk at schools at all levels, and simple enforcement of proof of vaccination before school entry (as is the case here in South Africa) would go a long way to countering the problem.

He says, hopefully - because I'll bet that people in the US and countries in Europe will still have campaigns to escape vaccination.

The ridiculousness of the anti-vaccine movement grows every day. There have been around 7-8 epidemiological studies in countries (e.g Denmark) that record all medical information showing absolutely no causation (nor correlation) of autism and vaccines. It isn't the thimerosal (only one vaccine in Denmark has it, feel free to compare the data of children who received that vaccine with those who didn't - the autism rates are identical). It isn't multiple injections in one day (see Denmark and other EU countries who keep record of all this). There is no connection between autism and vaccines based off of the thousands upon thousands of patients concluded. Nor is it the MMR vaccine (again, Denmark & others).

Instead of providing evidence against the autism and vaccine how about you guys provide evidence FOR the connection? There's Wakefield's 1998 paper, retracted by the Lancelet which contained a pathetically small number of patients (some of whom were referred to Wakefield by a lawyer fyi). The problem here is that you can't provide evidence of this connection, you can provide a few personal accounts of tragedy which may or may not be connected to vaccines.Â

Honestly do you have any idea of the World your going to create without vaccinesÂ ? Think about the huge death toll that smallpox had on native Americans or watch what Polio has done to people:Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Maybe it will be someone else's child who gets paralyzed from this preventable disease or maybe it will be your own.Â

JKTjust for a moment remeber DPT and DPTa and other adverse E's.and imagine your child with an unexplained cause for severe autism symptoms, and where in evolutionary history have humans immune systems been exposed to multiple major diseases at one time on a herd scale? I did not vote for a means justify the ends way to get the vocus these issue's deserve(pick your sides I have)we just need to be smart not argumentative!dave

Society''''''''''Â we are all in this together, the US is the best place and the best time if there ever was/is one to be Autistic. I can say it defines my life thru my son, Profoundly autistic, i am pround of the complex and somewhat effective system we as americans have developed to help the "?genetically chosen ones?" to humble us to are knees/foreheads. Communisim is not how we got here ,we got here by taking on the unknowns, and some have made rgave mistakes for the masses. Communism did not do it, we , you and I and many ancestors did it thru struggle and hard work, I will never let up on understanding why tornados hit one house and not another, and thru all that I will repsect an individuals decision. ALLways

I resent articles such as these, as my child became "collateral damage" in your precious "herd immunity" paradigm. Our family is already immunologically fragile(I have Lupus, allergies, etc) and a live virus combo sent my son over the edge immunologically, rendering him chronically ill for 2 full years. 10 years later, he is far better, but still bears scars and damage from an overzealous vaccine program. I found The Hunger Games series to be particularly apropos to the situation those of us with vaccine-damaged children face. Our children were chosen as "tributes" in the government's "Public Health Games". I was once one of the Sheeple. NEVER again.

That study gives evidence to the FACT a person with elevated iron levels are PRONE TO not being able to CLEAR a virus. That is because virus' and bacteria NEED iron to survive in the body. Now with everyone talking about 'quarantine' , one might wonder HOW a person with low iron levels , a vegetarian , is EVER going to be able to protect himself , herself FROM the meat eaters with THEIR high iron levels ? Those iron levels that do not allow their immune system to clear a virus and therefore become a walking reservoir of communicable disease ?â€œBody iron stores can be explained by differences in the dietary intake of haem iron"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...Just wondering.

As a parent of young children in the mid 1990s, I took the vaccination issue seriously. I did a ton of research, making sure to read everything from the anti-vaccine fanatics to the CDC. In my opinion, blanket statements should not be made about vaccination one way or the other. Balancing the risk of the vaccines vs the risk of the diseases, I chose to vaccinate my children with some vaccines but not with others. I also consciously acknowledge the herd immunity issue. It's difficult to think "my child is more at risk from the vaccine than from the disease but I know that if everyone didn't vaccinate because of this we'd lose herd immunity and the risk would then be stronger for the disease." It's hard to ask parents to put their kids at risk for the greater good, regardless of the debate over whether that risk of big or small. It is not categorically true that vaccination is the panacea claimed by its supporters, nor is it true that vaccination is a sinister plot by the pharmaceutical companies as claimed by its detractors. Both sides have valid points, valid arguments, and blindly ignore certain scientific facts. Even the debunking of Wakefield's research isn't as cut and dried as some would wish. In my perfect world parents would do as I did and thoroughly research the evidence and expert opinion supporting, or not, any given vaccine. As I said, this process resulted in an informed decision that my kids would be largely, but not completely, unvaccinated.Â

Gordon, I respect your efforts at self-education, and certainly you are entitled to your opinions, but there is no substitute for a formal education to get a thorough understanding of the safety and efficacy issues in the vaccine field.Â Most of us who have gone to the effort to get a Ph.D. in microbiology and have spent our careers in the field will agree that it is clear that the licenced vaccines are all relatively safe and effective and worth getting where recommended by the CDC, even without the herd immunity issue.Â We would also mostly agree that Wakefield's research has been thoroughly debunked.Â I would argue that the anti-vaccine crowd is willfully misinformed by some crazy desire to believe in conspiracy theories and a lack of respect for science.Â Many of the leaders of this movement, such as Wakefield,Â are intoxicated with the audiences they get and may actually believe in their cause.Â

And everyone knows that the vaccine makers are always indemnified. They cannot be sued over design defects. What if the virus strain loses its effectiveness or reverts to extreme virulence. This has happened a number of years ago and is likely to happen again.

Dr. Tinker, please read this, because your article is not helping.Â The initialÂ incentive for people to make the irrational and ignorant choice not to vaccinate is not, in most cases, lack of information (even though lack of information is the major problem).Â The major influence is the cultural phenomenon of the growing ideological distrust of science that crosses the major right vs left political lines.Â You can clearly see this in the comments of the denialists, and a growing fraction of these are religious conservatives, such as those in Idaho and Utah.Â By invoking the name of the culture warrior Richard Dawkins, which was completely unnecessary, you've ensured that about half the population will assume that they should distrust every conclusion mentioned in your article.Â The children who have died, and will die, from completely preventable disease deserve better.Â Please do not link this to the culture wars.Â Stay on message with the facts.

If you read Wakefield's article, as I did soon after it was published, you would see that his studies were quite flawed, without proper controls, and with too small a group to draw any conclusions.Â I remember being amazed that it was published.Â Other labs tried to verify Wakefield's experiments and could not.Â Recently, it was discovered that Wakefield faked some of his results.Â Most of the co-authors withdrew their name from the paper and it was retracted by the journal.Â

There can be a beneficial twist to low vaccination rates.Â Mothers exposed to diseases they are immunized against tend to develop higher antibody titers.Â There is evidence that diseases like measles can be propagated by those who are vaccinated without those people ever realizing it.Â

Low titers are a problem in mothers who are vaccinated. Low titers result in low maternal antibody titers in their newborns, which leave their newborns more vulnerable to infection.

However, if the mother has been exposed she can develop high titers and her newborn will have high titers as well, thus protecting her child better. So depending who gets exposed, the motherÂ (prior to pregnancy) orÂ herÂ child (prior to vaccination)Â the presence of non-vaccinated population can help or harm.

This was part of my oral exam some years back. Protective titers from vaccinationÂ are fractions of those that typically result from full-blown disease, even though they are still effective.Â Titers decline over time, and by the time a motherÂ gives birth theyÂ will not typically be near the levels of those who had measles, for instance.Â

That causes maternal protective antibodies in infantsÂ to drop to unprotective levels sooner.Â

I can dig up the refs and email them if you want. Might take a few days.

Jacob, if the risk from the vaccination is markedly lower than the risk from the disease that it prevents, which it is, then people forgoing the vaccination exposes themselves (rather their children) and others (again children) to a greater risk of harm.Â That is not a rationale thing to do.Â What parents need to do is choose between risks (i.e., choose between risk of harm from vaccination versus risk ofÂ harm from disease), not naively think they can avoid all riskÂ (i.e., thinking the choice is between risk of harm from vaccination versus 0 risk).Â Moreover, they need to think carefully about the risk of harm from disease if many people forgo vaccinations, and not under conditions where virtually everyone gets vaccination (i.e., the herd immunity discussed in this article).

@facebook-1084382530:disqusÂ You should read the article again since apparently you did not understand. The author calls people who DO get vaccinated "suckers" since they are willing to take a small risk to benefit the others. While I do not think we should force people to get vaccinated in a free society, the fact is that Â the individuals who refuse to get vaccinated or vaccinate their kids DO take advantage of the fact that most of the society is vaccinated and DO contribute to degradation of the herd immunity. While not illegal this behavior is unethical and in the long run will harm everybody.

"Herd immunity, or the protection of individuals who are not vaccinated due to generally high vaccination rates within a population, does not currently exist in many pockets of the US." And just why do you think these unvaccinated people exist in the first place? Because some people would be harmed by vaccination and we will never know who all these people are, so people who forgoe vaccinations because of this are not "suckers"Â nor do theyÂ "cheat."Â They are doing it for their own health, not out of negligence.Your bird analogyÂ is a bird-brained one.

There's a significant difference between people who are too young to have been vaccinated yet or medically can't get vaccinations due to allergies or other conditions, and people who choose not to have their children vaccinated based on junk pseudoscience and the scare tactics of woo-peddlars.The people who can't get vaccinations, especially newborns, depend on the herd immunity provided by people who can get them.

"There's a significant difference between people who are too young to have been vaccinated yet or medically can't get vaccinations due to allergies or other conditions, and people who choose not to have their children vaccinated based on junk pseudoscience and the scare tactics of woo-peddlars."

Actually, the people who you say are in the latter category, actually fit into the former category. I would think someone such as yourself who finds differences where there are none would be able to recognized just how bird-brained the author's bird analogy was, but I guess I was wrong.

You clearly did not read my entire comment, where I write "nor do they 'cheat,'" which is what the article accused them of doing. They are not vaccinated, because as you say, they cannot be for various reasons.Â Don't tell me I've misunderstood the bird analogy and then go on buying into its bird-brained logic.

"Unfortunately, we are beginning to see signs of this phenomenon, due in part to parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the fear that it could cause autismâ€”the now completely debunked message delivered by Andrew Wakefield in 1998."

Completely debunked? According to whom, Ms. Tinker? Beware, in Science, of making broad/sweeping statements such as these, or you are destined to look like an idiot, eventually. "Everyone knows the earth is flat." "Everyone knows global warming is a myth." "Everyone knows that - according to the Special Theory of Relativity - it is impossible for particles to exceed the speed of light." Oops...

There is absolutely no consensus that vaccines are harmless. Do they cause autism...well, in my estimation, the jury is still out. Are there serious problems with vaccination, and should everyone be mandated to receive them? Hmm...now, that is a dangerous idea.

Indeed, far too many who have been vaccinated experience symptoms far in excess of acceptable risk. Then there are those among us who never receive vaccines and never experience the annual flu-like symptoms of others who routinely vaccinate. Then there are those who never vaccinate and never succumb to other "virus-transmitted" diseases. This is not anecdote, Ms. Tinker, it is fact...however, uncomfortable it may be for you to acknowledge.

"As a scientist," you have a responsibility to avoid misrepresenting the facts. Your opinions are not Science. Your thoughts and views are your thoughts and views. Please refrain from equating your ideas with scientific fact.

Despite the oft touted "studies have failed to show a link between vaccines and autism" (which is NOT the same thing as "there is no link'), The US Sec of HHS agreed to pay Poling and Banks for their vaccine-caused autism avoiding their well documented medical cases establishing prcedence which could be used by other families seeking redress under the NVICP.Â When scientific research is funded, overseen, conducted and published by the corporations which will profit from a positive outcome, you can be assured that studies showing adverse events will NOT be published, thereby making meta-analysies self-fulfilling.

I find it truly incredible that, in one of the countries that USED to be a poster child for the benefits of vaccination, people can argue as you do against its benefits. Â People who are, almost certainly, protected themselves against the diseases that are now coming back into one of the more advanced societies on the planet, because of the growing tide of "vaccine denialism". Â

Protected, Dr Jonas,Â because your parents almost certainly vaccinated you against polio, smallpox, diphtheria, and other diseases that people used to die of in distressingly large numbers. Â The only reason you can be as smug as you appear is because your society is still largely protected, and you don't easily see the downside of low vaccination rates - but you will, if this anti-vaccination trend increases.

And the pity is that it will be your children, and not you, who will be the ones directly affected.

Dr. Moses,it 's funny how you try to invalidate Dr Tinker's (and yes, she is a real PhD) column because, according to you, she is misrepresenting facts, and then you use completely anecdotal evidence (i.e. true in only one case or two, but completely invalid from an statistical perspective) to try to make your case. Using your logic (which is a complete fallacy) I could say that vaccines are not only good to protect against diseases, they also protect against tornadoes and lightning strikes. How you ask, well... I have followed all recommended vaccination schedules, and I have NEVER being struck by lightning or run over by a tornado. You cannot deny those "facts" either.

There is no evidence that foregoing vaccination will be harmful.Â The evidence is that the diseases that are prevented will be harmful and will cause death or permanent disability in some children.Â Unfortunately we are seeing the same sort of mentality that rejects scientific evidence.Â Also we are seeing the way in which personal paradigms trump evidence.

Science education has long struggled with the problem of paradigms.Â Now we know that the standard educational practices which rely on conventional lectures do not have much effect on embedded paradaigms.Â The Physics Education Research (PER) groups have come up with effective strategies for helping students overcome these paradigms with regard to physical laws.Â So similar strategies need to be used in the other sciences.Â In addition students need to be made aware of how their paradigms may be at odds with evidence, and that they need to change their paradigms.

So in the end it comes down to not just teaching science facts, but teaching students how to think more like scientists and examine evidence.Â Cognitive psychology has shown how paradigms block understanding of evidence.Â People make up arguments that have no factual basis when their paradigms are confronted, so just presenting evidence does not work.

In addition the state may need to step in.Â Enforcing proper behavior to achieve the common good is sometimes necessary.Â Examples of this are making people obey the traffic regulations, enforcing cleanliness in the food industry, or mandatory quarantine of people suffering from dangerous highly contagious diseases.Â If an adult wishes to avoid a vaccination that is their right, but children need to be protected by society.Â If an adult is advised to get a vaccination when traveling, but they contract a potentially deadly disease, they can be refused re-entry to the US or quarantined.

Differential response to vaccines is a fact. Some do fine; others have more pronounced reactions. It's also a fact that we don't know why certain diseases (autism) and conditions (allergies, auto-immune syndromes) are apparently on the rise. Something in the environment is likely to blame. Nothing has been debunked. So when someone from the 'scientific community' comes out with these rubber stamp statements, it makes parents all the more distrustful. Parents aren't stupid rubes--they want facts and honesty, not patronizing platitudes.

It will be a truly ironic development if developing countries start refusing access at airports and borders, to people arriving fromÂ theÂ US and Europe who do not have the appropriateÂ vaccinationÂ certificates.

Ironic - and welcome, because there have already been cases of travellers from Europe reimporting measles into countries in less developed regions from which it had been eradicated as an endemic disease, and who really did not want it back.

Vaccines have been hailed, quite rightly, as one of the most effective means of prevention of infectious disease that we have developed. Â And unfortunately, the fact that an entire generation has grown up without the shadow of smallpox, poliomyelitis, whooping cough and measles has made them so risk-averse that the minor effects of vaccination (and yes, there are meta-analyses showing that the risks ARE minor) are persuading them to avoid it entirely.

Including facts about vaccination in school curricula, having experts talk at schools at all levels, and simple enforcement of proof of vaccination before school entry (as is the case here in South Africa) would go a long way to countering the problem.

He says, hopefully - because I'll bet that people in the US and countries in Europe will still have campaigns to escape vaccination.

The ridiculousness of the anti-vaccine movement grows every day. There have been around 7-8 epidemiological studies in countries (e.g Denmark) that record all medical information showing absolutely no causation (nor correlation) of autism and vaccines. It isn't the thimerosal (only one vaccine in Denmark has it, feel free to compare the data of children who received that vaccine with those who didn't - the autism rates are identical). It isn't multiple injections in one day (see Denmark and other EU countries who keep record of all this). There is no connection between autism and vaccines based off of the thousands upon thousands of patients concluded. Nor is it the MMR vaccine (again, Denmark & others).

Instead of providing evidence against the autism and vaccine how about you guys provide evidence FOR the connection? There's Wakefield's 1998 paper, retracted by the Lancelet which contained a pathetically small number of patients (some of whom were referred to Wakefield by a lawyer fyi). The problem here is that you can't provide evidence of this connection, you can provide a few personal accounts of tragedy which may or may not be connected to vaccines.Â

Honestly do you have any idea of the World your going to create without vaccinesÂ ? Think about the huge death toll that smallpox had on native Americans or watch what Polio has done to people:Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Maybe it will be someone else's child who gets paralyzed from this preventable disease or maybe it will be your own.Â

JKTjust for a moment remeber DPT and DPTa and other adverse E's.and imagine your child with an unexplained cause for severe autism symptoms, and where in evolutionary history have humans immune systems been exposed to multiple major diseases at one time on a herd scale? I did not vote for a means justify the ends way to get the vocus these issue's deserve(pick your sides I have)we just need to be smart not argumentative!dave

Society''''''''''Â we are all in this together, the US is the best place and the best time if there ever was/is one to be Autistic. I can say it defines my life thru my son, Profoundly autistic, i am pround of the complex and somewhat effective system we as americans have developed to help the "?genetically chosen ones?" to humble us to are knees/foreheads. Communisim is not how we got here ,we got here by taking on the unknowns, and some have made rgave mistakes for the masses. Communism did not do it, we , you and I and many ancestors did it thru struggle and hard work, I will never let up on understanding why tornados hit one house and not another, and thru all that I will repsect an individuals decision. ALLways

I resent articles such as these, as my child became "collateral damage" in your precious "herd immunity" paradigm. Our family is already immunologically fragile(I have Lupus, allergies, etc) and a live virus combo sent my son over the edge immunologically, rendering him chronically ill for 2 full years. 10 years later, he is far better, but still bears scars and damage from an overzealous vaccine program. I found The Hunger Games series to be particularly apropos to the situation those of us with vaccine-damaged children face. Our children were chosen as "tributes" in the government's "Public Health Games". I was once one of the Sheeple. NEVER again.

That study gives evidence to the FACT a person with elevated iron levels are PRONE TO not being able to CLEAR a virus. That is because virus' and bacteria NEED iron to survive in the body. Now with everyone talking about 'quarantine' , one might wonder HOW a person with low iron levels , a vegetarian , is EVER going to be able to protect himself , herself FROM the meat eaters with THEIR high iron levels ? Those iron levels that do not allow their immune system to clear a virus and therefore become a walking reservoir of communicable disease ?â€œBody iron stores can be explained by differences in the dietary intake of haem iron"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...Just wondering.

As a parent of young children in the mid 1990s, I took the vaccination issue seriously. I did a ton of research, making sure to read everything from the anti-vaccine fanatics to the CDC. In my opinion, blanket statements should not be made about vaccination one way or the other. Balancing the risk of the vaccines vs the risk of the diseases, I chose to vaccinate my children with some vaccines but not with others. I also consciously acknowledge the herd immunity issue. It's difficult to think "my child is more at risk from the vaccine than from the disease but I know that if everyone didn't vaccinate because of this we'd lose herd immunity and the risk would then be stronger for the disease." It's hard to ask parents to put their kids at risk for the greater good, regardless of the debate over whether that risk of big or small. It is not categorically true that vaccination is the panacea claimed by its supporters, nor is it true that vaccination is a sinister plot by the pharmaceutical companies as claimed by its detractors. Both sides have valid points, valid arguments, and blindly ignore certain scientific facts. Even the debunking of Wakefield's research isn't as cut and dried as some would wish. In my perfect world parents would do as I did and thoroughly research the evidence and expert opinion supporting, or not, any given vaccine. As I said, this process resulted in an informed decision that my kids would be largely, but not completely, unvaccinated.Â

Gordon, I respect your efforts at self-education, and certainly you are entitled to your opinions, but there is no substitute for a formal education to get a thorough understanding of the safety and efficacy issues in the vaccine field.Â Most of us who have gone to the effort to get a Ph.D. in microbiology and have spent our careers in the field will agree that it is clear that the licenced vaccines are all relatively safe and effective and worth getting where recommended by the CDC, even without the herd immunity issue.Â We would also mostly agree that Wakefield's research has been thoroughly debunked.Â I would argue that the anti-vaccine crowd is willfully misinformed by some crazy desire to believe in conspiracy theories and a lack of respect for science.Â Many of the leaders of this movement, such as Wakefield,Â are intoxicated with the audiences they get and may actually believe in their cause.Â

And everyone knows that the vaccine makers are always indemnified. They cannot be sued over design defects. What if the virus strain loses its effectiveness or reverts to extreme virulence. This has happened a number of years ago and is likely to happen again.

Dr. Tinker, please read this, because your article is not helping.Â The initialÂ incentive for people to make the irrational and ignorant choice not to vaccinate is not, in most cases, lack of information (even though lack of information is the major problem).Â The major influence is the cultural phenomenon of the growing ideological distrust of science that crosses the major right vs left political lines.Â You can clearly see this in the comments of the denialists, and a growing fraction of these are religious conservatives, such as those in Idaho and Utah.Â By invoking the name of the culture warrior Richard Dawkins, which was completely unnecessary, you've ensured that about half the population will assume that they should distrust every conclusion mentioned in your article.Â The children who have died, and will die, from completely preventable disease deserve better.Â Please do not link this to the culture wars.Â Stay on message with the facts.

If you read Wakefield's article, as I did soon after it was published, you would see that his studies were quite flawed, without proper controls, and with too small a group to draw any conclusions.Â I remember being amazed that it was published.Â Other labs tried to verify Wakefield's experiments and could not.Â Recently, it was discovered that Wakefield faked some of his results.Â Most of the co-authors withdrew their name from the paper and it was retracted by the journal.Â

There can be a beneficial twist to low vaccination rates.Â Mothers exposed to diseases they are immunized against tend to develop higher antibody titers.Â There is evidence that diseases like measles can be propagated by those who are vaccinated without those people ever realizing it.Â

Low titers are a problem in mothers who are vaccinated. Low titers result in low maternal antibody titers in their newborns, which leave their newborns more vulnerable to infection.

However, if the mother has been exposed she can develop high titers and her newborn will have high titers as well, thus protecting her child better. So depending who gets exposed, the motherÂ (prior to pregnancy) orÂ herÂ child (prior to vaccination)Â the presence of non-vaccinated population can help or harm.

This was part of my oral exam some years back. Protective titers from vaccinationÂ are fractions of those that typically result from full-blown disease, even though they are still effective.Â Titers decline over time, and by the time a motherÂ gives birth theyÂ will not typically be near the levels of those who had measles, for instance.Â

That causes maternal protective antibodies in infantsÂ to drop to unprotective levels sooner.Â

I can dig up the refs and email them if you want. Might take a few days.

Jacob, if the risk from the vaccination is markedly lower than the risk from the disease that it prevents, which it is, then people forgoing the vaccination exposes themselves (rather their children) and others (again children) to a greater risk of harm.Â That is not a rationale thing to do.Â What parents need to do is choose between risks (i.e., choose between risk of harm from vaccination versus risk ofÂ harm from disease), not naively think they can avoid all riskÂ (i.e., thinking the choice is between risk of harm from vaccination versus 0 risk).Â Moreover, they need to think carefully about the risk of harm from disease if many people forgo vaccinations, and not under conditions where virtually everyone gets vaccination (i.e., the herd immunity discussed in this article).

@facebook-1084382530:disqusÂ You should read the article again since apparently you did not understand. The author calls people who DO get vaccinated "suckers" since they are willing to take a small risk to benefit the others. While I do not think we should force people to get vaccinated in a free society, the fact is that Â the individuals who refuse to get vaccinated or vaccinate their kids DO take advantage of the fact that most of the society is vaccinated and DO contribute to degradation of the herd immunity. While not illegal this behavior is unethical and in the long run will harm everybody.

Actually, any prophylactic effect that is imparted by vaccination wanes after only a few years (6-10), meaning that adults have lost any effective immunity to these diseases, and mothers pass almost no protection on to their children now.

First of all titres are a surrogate marker for immunity.Â There are many people, myself included, who had very high titres from a vaccine, but went on to get "that" diseaseÂ a few weeks after receiving the result of the "reassuring" blood test.

By 2004, James Cherry pointed out that adults, revaccinated against pertussis, don't develop any antibacterial activity whatsoever.Â He went on to explain why.Â Â The current vaccines contains a few antigens, whichÂ create "original antigenic sin", whereby the immune response to the vaccine is abnormal.Â That first learned response then becomes the default position the immune system takes, on future booster shots.Â So in the case of the whooping cough vaccines there are key protein virulence factors which have not been included in the vaccines including ACT, TCF, TCT, as well as BrkA and DNT. Because the first three are not included, the default immune response, does not prevent colonisation, and furthermore, Cherry stated that the "original antigenic sin" results in the vaccinated being unable to clear the bacteria from their lungs.Â The unvaccinated have immunity to all the front line virulence factors and very quickly clear the bacteria on re-exposure.

Mothers who have been vaccinated, may develop surrogate markers, but these do not guarantee efficient immune responses after exposure to the natural disease, because their first "learned response" was incorrect.Â Furthermore, they are still not sure "what" the surrogate marker actually is for pertussis.

There is also evidence from medical literature to show that the same may be the case with measles as well - a surrogate marker, may not indicate protection from disease.

Original antigenic sin can occur. But toÂ suggest that this is the norm in vaccination isÂ wrong. If that were true, then the effect of vaccination would be to make people sicker, as occurs when a person gets infected with a second dengue strain.Â That isn't what happens.Â People are protected.Â There are very rare outliers, yes.Â Some get unusual reactions. Â But there is no question that vaccines work. The diseases we protect againstÂ can kill.

Vaccines that present mulitple antigens don't necessarily result in antibodies to all the antigens. The immune system is conservative and begins to narrow its antibody response down to one or two antibody respondersÂ rather quickly, less than a day.

Yes, it's true that antibodies are a surrogate marker.Â Immunity is conceptually a trident. The first response is from innate immunity which is composed of macrophages, neutrophils, NK cells and circulating IgM.Â These work pretty well. They are why we don't get sick every day. There are some gray areas as well, such asÂ genes for resistance to smallpox and plague. These help the adaptive immune system to respond to those challenges.

There are two types of adaptiveÂ immunity, cellular (CD8)Â and humoral. Cellular assays are muchÂ harder to do, so they aren't very common even in vaccine studies. (Although they should be, particularly for diseases like measles.)Â Antibodies are produced by the humoral system, B cells.Â There are also some variations in the kinds of antibodies produced based on how the challenge is presented. IgG vs IgA can make a difference in protection. IgA is the secreted form which will help most in the lungs and gut and it is developed in response to infection or presentation of the vaccine/antigen to the mucosa. This is called mucosal immunity. But there is also some variation in protection depending on which mucosa.

It is expected that a disease like Pertussis will not be 100% protected against.Â Bacterial diseases are virtually impossible to entirely prevent.Â Vaccines can (in some cases, like Pertussis) be highly protective. But if a person gets sick with Pertussis after vaccination, they will typically get a mild case that may be prolonged.

But the reason why a Pertussis case in a vaccinated person may be prolongedÂ is NOT because of original antigenic sin.Â The reason is just the native limit of the immune system.Â Vaccines against bacterial diseases are just not 100% effective. They increase the dose required to contract the disease, butÂ you can still contract the disease again. You can test this in your own mind quite simply by asking yourself if it is possible to get Strep throat or an infected wound more than once in your life. Â The immune system is not perfect. Bacteria can overwhelm defenses, even if those defenses are built up.

Adults who recover from Pertussis naturally can get the illness again as adults, just like the vaccinated can. I would expect it is a little easier for a vaccinated adult to get the disease, but I couldn't testify to that in court.Â As far as I know, nobody has studied that.Â Â This is part of the life-cycle of Pertussis. It is how Pertussis keeps itself from dying out. If it only infected children, it wouldn't be vectored very easily.Â So very mildly infected adults act as unwitting carriers.

Some diseases like TB are so difficult for the immune system to deal with that vaccinationÂ isÂ of questionable use.Â (TB takes up residence inside macrophages, the cells that eat and kill most bacteria in the lungs.) For this reason the BCG vaccine is not used in the USA.Â Inoculation with BCG gives a person a positive response to a TB skin test for the rest of their lives. Since it is questionable whether it confers any benefit whatsoever, in the USA the decision was made that it's more important to be able to reliably track exposure.

Wakefield was a "case study", which can be as small as a single case, and his original conclusion was that what he had discovered warranted further study.Â Buie and Krigsman both found the same intestinal problems that Wakefield did; Krigsman ended up leaving NYU shortly after, for reasons only he could explain.Â The alleged faking of data by Wakefield is much alleged, being started by Brian Deer in his complaint against Wakefield and subsequent reporting thereafter, but this was not one of the charges which resulted in the GMC striking him from the register in the UK.Â Walker-Smith (the only member of the original paper's team to not withdraw) was recently vindicated in British court when it was determined that he was not guilty of the charges Deer leveled against him.Â However, considering the heavy-handed tactics employed against Wakefield and Walker-Smith, including very public smear campaigns that quickly degenerated into specualtive innuendo, it is hardly surprising that the rest quickly disavowed, as they sought to save their careers.Â Â

The mistakes that many in the pro camp make is the assumption that actual scientific research has been conducted (as opposed to research that is more akin to marketting), that just because one vaccine has a good risk/benefit ration that all will likewise, and that the government agencies which steer the public program are being honest in their communication with the masses, PhD or otherwise.

To look at examples in other areas of our for-profit medicine...

We were told for three decades that Ritalin was perfectly safe for use in kids, and that people like Breggin who warned about risks were just cranks.Â Just a few years ago it came out that it did present risk of cardiac damage when used at theraputic labels, and now carries a black box warning.

We were told for two decades that the use of anti-depressants posed no risk to the developing fetus, and women were encouraged to continue use while pregnant.Â Now it comes out that the risk studies were actually not properly conducted/published and the television routinely runs ads about the list of birth defects they can cause.

Oxycontin was licensed with the understanding that it was non-addictive (!) despite being an opiate derrivative, and in fact has become the number one abused drug in many areas of the US.Â The FDA, when faced with the reality that they failed to ask any questions in this regard took the unprecedented step of working with law enforcement and the people responsible for the fraudulant application for licensed actually went to prison.

Atypical neuroleptics were licensed with the understanding that they were more effective and less dangerous than older neuroleptics like Haldol.Â They were put into heavy use, including in the developmentally delayed population (especially those in residential programs) and in the gerriatric population, and were marketed for off-label uses for which they were never tested.Â When it came to light that they were neither safer nor more effective than the early drugs, numerous states sued the makers and were awarded billions to compensate for these companies making excessive profits as a result of their fraud.

Speaking of vaccines in particular, there have been many instances of problems that have come to light that bring into question the term "relatively safe".Â Live virus vaccines can spread the virus they are supposed to be preventing (the OPV was found to be the source of the polio outbreak in MN several years ago; when they tried to bring back the smallpox vaccine after 9/11 medical personnel who received it could not be around patients for 3 weeks), the DTwP was so dangerous that it caused the NVICP to be formed and had to be phased out in favor of the less effective DtaP.Â In fact, a representativefrom the FDA testifying before a Congressional committee back in 2000 admitted for the record that less than 10% of vaccine adverse reactions were reported to VAERs, which only adds to minimize the risks that are there.

Effective is also a term which cannot be made in a encompassing way.Â The CDC's own testing found that the infuenza vaccine have not reduced hospitolizations among the elderly or infant, and have not reduced deaths among the elderly.Â The recent Cochrane review found that this shot was not justified as a public health program, and a subsequent analysis of published studies found that the reason it was presumed to be effective in the original studies had more to do with the fact that the people who got the shot lived healthier lives in general than those who did not get it.Â The use of theÂ varicella vaccine has caused the unexpected result of increasing the number of cases of shingles, which are also striking at a much younger age, leading to the CDC pushing for a zoster shot to be developed.Â Recent studies have found that the use of Prevnar (the first billion dollar vaccine)Â has not reduced the ear infections it was designed to protect against, because other strains of that family of virus simply filled the void.

Simply resting upon paternalistic attitude that those who question the increasing load of vaccines that are being suggested or mandated will do nothing to slow the doubt and dissent when there are too many false statements being made by those who are pro.Â Science, including medicine is supposed to be about the truth, even when the truth is bad for business or contrary to good intent.Â

And for the record, i am not anti-vaccine per se.Â There are vaccines that have been good successes (best example IPV) and there are those that have been bad choices, whether because they do not deliver the protection we want or because they have a bad risk-benefit.Â

The author of this puff piece states that in 2010 Idaho's rate of vaccination was perilously low...If vaccines prevent dire outbreaks of deadly diseases, where are all of the deaths and disabilities suffered by this supposedly seriously at-risk populace?! Â Why aren't people dying and being hospitalized in mass numbers? Â Oh yeah, vaccines are useless tools used by PhRMA to fatten their bottom line for your entire, sickened, lifetime...

A Harvard researcher just released research which clearly demonstrates that antibodies do not equal immunity. Â In reality, EXCELLENT HEALTH and NUTRITION = IMMUNITY!

If the Government really wanted a healthy populace, they would subsidize pure water, clean air, and copious organic food instead of corn syrup and vaccines and do-harm pharmaceuticals, and processed food-like products.

I have no problem with YOU and YOURS getting all the vaccines you wish; however, it is a medical procedure with known adverse side effects (which include death and lifelong disability) - this is a risk I choose to avoid...from the 30+ needles in baby's first 24 months of life...

Regarding the ticks: in the scenario with vaccination, liken them to the lifelong disability my two (genetically unrelated) children suffer as a result of vaccine injuries (4 months and 6 months of age, respectively);our tax dollars will be the birds --forever working to keep-up with meeting their lifelong needs. Â The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is a REALITY not a make-believe story.

Also of interest - my fully vaccinated child contracted a number of the diseases she was supposedly protected against, and her case each time was at least twice as bad as her partially vaccinated sibling's and her entirely unvaccinated sibling's. Â None of the children required hospital care, either; so much for the risks of not vaccinating. Â Also of interest, they contracted the diseases from their fully vaccinated classmates on every occasion!!!

"Interesting"Â logic Professor Tinker.Â When you swan around the world going to conferences in third world countries and trecking through countries like Thailand, where diphtheria is still endemic, do you think to yourself, "Oh no, I can't go to those countries because they don't have "herd immunity" for X, Y and D disease."Â No.Â If you are disease phobic, which most medical professors are, you hike down to the travel clinic and get certain selected shots, and sit there with a grin in your face, and think, "Now my trip will be so nice, and I won't get sick."

Similarly when Jonas Salk rolled out the SALK vaccine, people didn't sit around thinking, "This won't work unless we have herd immunity".Â They assumed that vaccines would give personal immunity.

Now, if you want to roll out the old lie about the unvaccinated, presenting huge dangers to the vaccinated, then you better sit down and consider just why you have vaccines when you are travelling.Â And also ask yourself the question about WHY the vaccinated are in such danger.Â Could it be that they eat crap and have a death-inducing lifestyle?

And if you are going to pull out the old matra of, "But the herd must protect theÂ too young, and the too sick", then that is also a double edged sword.Â Personally I don't think a person should vaccinate their healthy babies, or themselves,Â "just" to protect the "too young, too old and too sick".Â There is a raft of medical literature on the epigenetic role of nutrients in "disease causation" enough to fill your office and more, which if you taught to your patients would result in huge disease incidence decline, and you should know that, from Infectious disease history.

Before you decide I'm a healthy heartless "Darwinian", I've got a primary immunodeficiency, with serious allergy toÂ ALL antibiotics, which is what happens when doctors fill you up with stuff because they don't know what else to do when youÂ (used to) get sick all the time.Â My immunodeficiency, according toÂ your "manual"... "should" be treated with monthly IVIG, but in my opinion, no-one with any sense would use that stuff.

"Herd Immunity" has nothing to do with my health at all.Â What protects me most, under normal circumstances, is the fact that I get plenty of vitamin D, C and A;Â I don't eat sugar, donuts, refined anything, potato chips or any of the crap which loads about 95% of the average American's food cupboard.Â And if everyone else ate properly, then I predict, within a year, American hospitals work-loads would be cut by at least half, and quite a few doctors would be looking for different jobs.

WhetherÂ you vaccinate your children or not, has nothing to do with the core health of the rest of theÂ vaccinated.

And Juliette are you aware that vaccination has actually made mother's breastmilk less potent in protecting their infants?Â The IgA levels in vaccinated breastfeeding mothers for measles is in the basement. And vaccination in the long run has actually led to leaving the most vulnerable - the infants at the highest risk. Â Â If you back up and look at the bigger picture you will see that all in all vaccination has not been the gift to humanity that you think it is.Â I once had your exact viewpoint, until I read for about 1000 hours on vaccines.Â I suggest you do the same before you do any more damage. And as part of your reading I suggest you read a new e-book by a PhD immunologist called "Vaccine Illusion" available on amazon.Â That will be a minor start in clearing you brain. Â Dr Suzanne Humphries.

Breast milk is in humans is NOT a source of maternal antibodies into circulation, IgA or any other type.Â We differ from other mammals in this way. Human IgA in humansÂ combats enteroviruses.Â See: Transfer of antibody via mother's milk. Van de Perre P. Vaccine. 2003 Jul 28;21(24):3374-6.Â

In humans, maternal antibodies are pumped across the placenta to levels approximately 1.5 times the titer present in the mother. The half-life of maternal antibody averages 40 days. (There is some variation on both of those.)

Titer levels vary over time in ways that we do not fully understand. See: Duration of Humoral Immunity to Common Viral and Vaccine AntigensIan J. Amanna, Nichole E. Carlson, Mark K. Slifka, NEJM, 2007, 357:1903-1915

I don't believe vaccines cause autism, but I disagree with Professor Tinker on the politics when she speaks of "suckers that have expended the energy and cost to get vaccinated".Â When the cost of vaccines are mandated on an economically mixed population, this is a per capita tax, one which, however light for the well-to-do, may be onerous for the poorest.Â Before we can speak of those taking advantage of "suckers", we should first make basic reforms to ensure the positive right to health care for everyone.Â No matter what we think of the roundabout mechanisms of Obamacare, we can and should have a simple, straightforward method of delivering all required vaccinations to all children for free, should their parents desire it, without insurance, without financial paperwork, but simply as an amenity offered to those who are willing to do their part to protect the herd.

Once we separate the issue of choice from the issue of cost - something which our society regards as an unquestionable ethical mandate whenever it is the poor to be paid rather than paying, such as for the agreement to donate organs on death - _then_ we should still respect the choice of parents based on their perception of the risks.Â However foolish those refusing may be, they nonetheless, at the least, provide society with useful data, a control group for the effectiveness and risks of vaccines.Â Ultimately, our society cannot provide immortality to citizens - what we can provide are broad and fundamental rights, both to receive vaccines regardless of income and to refuse them regardless of scientific consensus.

Lancet's editors retracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis of non-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and University College London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccines and autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity, however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry-picked the documents, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and his coauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I made in this report. Wakefield has since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Since the Lancet study was published, others have confirmed the link between autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example, recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI disease and sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that, in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed for the first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as the allegations against him are proving to be false, will only further undermine public confidence in vaccine safety. Apparently, Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trusted Brain Deer, the BMJ, and theGMC. For all the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegationsof research misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are ofany research data and conclusions.

Thank you for posting this. The fact that the author continues to spout the talking points about Wakefield and was seemingly unaware of these more recent developments tells me that she is only superficially aware of the issues surrounding this topic, unlike those of us who actually "have a dog in the hunt", so to speak.

Lancet's editorsretracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chiefFiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis ofnon-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and UniversityCollege London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccinesand autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity,however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry picked thedocuments, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and hiscoauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I madein this report. Wakefieldhas since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Â

Since the Lancet studywas published, others have confirmed the link between

autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and

coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example,

recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that

gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and

may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI diseaseand sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that,in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed forthe first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMRvaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Â

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as theallegations against him are proving to be false, will only further underminepublic confidence in vaccine safety. Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trustedBrain Deer, the BMJ, and the GMC. Forall the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegations ofresearch misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are of anyresearch data and conclusions.

Lancet's editorsretracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chiefFiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis ofnon-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and UniversityCollege London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccinesand autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity,however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry picked thedocuments, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and hiscoauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I madein this report. Wakefieldhas since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Â

Since the Lancet studywas published, others have confirmed the link between

autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and

coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example,

recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that

gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and

may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI diseaseand sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that,in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed forthe first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMRvaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Â

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as theallegations against him are proving to be false, will only further underminepublic confidence in vaccine safety. Apparently, Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trustedBrain Deer, the BMJ, and the GMC. Forall the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegations ofresearch misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are of anyresearch data and conclusions.

Our children are already suffering--have you raised a child with autism? Our children are suffering from a metabolic disorder that affects every organ in their bodies.Â They have immune dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammatory bowel disease, encephalopathy, to name a few.Â Care to give an explanation for the now 1 in 88 children with autism, the 1 in 54 boys in the US, the 1 in 29 boys with autism in New Jersey?? It's not better diagnosing.Dr. WakefieldÂ is but one person who wanted a better testing of vaccines for safety.Â The safe vaccine movement in the US had nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield.Â It did have to do with tens of thousands of parents who took their normally developing children for vaccinations and soon they developed autism.We are fighting for all children and we are never going away.Â Maurine Meleck, SC

And yet, few pediatricians bother to check for the very contra-indicators such as allergy to vaccine compents or familial medical histories which put them at risk for adverse reactions.Â What is the point of having the product inserts to avoid uneccessary risk when they are largely ignored?

And newborns do indeed get vaccinated.Â The Hep B is given in the first 12 hours of life, despite be one of the riskiest shots and having no benefit to most of the infants which get it.Â

Actually, any prophylactic effect that is imparted by vaccination wanes after only a few years (6-10), meaning that adults have lost any effective immunity to these diseases, and mothers pass almost no protection on to their children now.

First of all titres are a surrogate marker for immunity.Â There are many people, myself included, who had very high titres from a vaccine, but went on to get "that" diseaseÂ a few weeks after receiving the result of the "reassuring" blood test.

By 2004, James Cherry pointed out that adults, revaccinated against pertussis, don't develop any antibacterial activity whatsoever.Â He went on to explain why.Â Â The current vaccines contains a few antigens, whichÂ create "original antigenic sin", whereby the immune response to the vaccine is abnormal.Â That first learned response then becomes the default position the immune system takes, on future booster shots.Â So in the case of the whooping cough vaccines there are key protein virulence factors which have not been included in the vaccines including ACT, TCF, TCT, as well as BrkA and DNT. Because the first three are not included, the default immune response, does not prevent colonisation, and furthermore, Cherry stated that the "original antigenic sin" results in the vaccinated being unable to clear the bacteria from their lungs.Â The unvaccinated have immunity to all the front line virulence factors and very quickly clear the bacteria on re-exposure.

Mothers who have been vaccinated, may develop surrogate markers, but these do not guarantee efficient immune responses after exposure to the natural disease, because their first "learned response" was incorrect.Â Furthermore, they are still not sure "what" the surrogate marker actually is for pertussis.

There is also evidence from medical literature to show that the same may be the case with measles as well - a surrogate marker, may not indicate protection from disease.

Original antigenic sin can occur. But toÂ suggest that this is the norm in vaccination isÂ wrong. If that were true, then the effect of vaccination would be to make people sicker, as occurs when a person gets infected with a second dengue strain.Â That isn't what happens.Â People are protected.Â There are very rare outliers, yes.Â Some get unusual reactions. Â But there is no question that vaccines work. The diseases we protect againstÂ can kill.

Vaccines that present mulitple antigens don't necessarily result in antibodies to all the antigens. The immune system is conservative and begins to narrow its antibody response down to one or two antibody respondersÂ rather quickly, less than a day.

Yes, it's true that antibodies are a surrogate marker.Â Immunity is conceptually a trident. The first response is from innate immunity which is composed of macrophages, neutrophils, NK cells and circulating IgM.Â These work pretty well. They are why we don't get sick every day. There are some gray areas as well, such asÂ genes for resistance to smallpox and plague. These help the adaptive immune system to respond to those challenges.

There are two types of adaptiveÂ immunity, cellular (CD8)Â and humoral. Cellular assays are muchÂ harder to do, so they aren't very common even in vaccine studies. (Although they should be, particularly for diseases like measles.)Â Antibodies are produced by the humoral system, B cells.Â There are also some variations in the kinds of antibodies produced based on how the challenge is presented. IgG vs IgA can make a difference in protection. IgA is the secreted form which will help most in the lungs and gut and it is developed in response to infection or presentation of the vaccine/antigen to the mucosa. This is called mucosal immunity. But there is also some variation in protection depending on which mucosa.

It is expected that a disease like Pertussis will not be 100% protected against.Â Bacterial diseases are virtually impossible to entirely prevent.Â Vaccines can (in some cases, like Pertussis) be highly protective. But if a person gets sick with Pertussis after vaccination, they will typically get a mild case that may be prolonged.

But the reason why a Pertussis case in a vaccinated person may be prolongedÂ is NOT because of original antigenic sin.Â The reason is just the native limit of the immune system.Â Vaccines against bacterial diseases are just not 100% effective. They increase the dose required to contract the disease, butÂ you can still contract the disease again. You can test this in your own mind quite simply by asking yourself if it is possible to get Strep throat or an infected wound more than once in your life. Â The immune system is not perfect. Bacteria can overwhelm defenses, even if those defenses are built up.

Adults who recover from Pertussis naturally can get the illness again as adults, just like the vaccinated can. I would expect it is a little easier for a vaccinated adult to get the disease, but I couldn't testify to that in court.Â As far as I know, nobody has studied that.Â Â This is part of the life-cycle of Pertussis. It is how Pertussis keeps itself from dying out. If it only infected children, it wouldn't be vectored very easily.Â So very mildly infected adults act as unwitting carriers.

Some diseases like TB are so difficult for the immune system to deal with that vaccinationÂ isÂ of questionable use.Â (TB takes up residence inside macrophages, the cells that eat and kill most bacteria in the lungs.) For this reason the BCG vaccine is not used in the USA.Â Inoculation with BCG gives a person a positive response to a TB skin test for the rest of their lives. Since it is questionable whether it confers any benefit whatsoever, in the USA the decision was made that it's more important to be able to reliably track exposure.

Wakefield was a "case study", which can be as small as a single case, and his original conclusion was that what he had discovered warranted further study.Â Buie and Krigsman both found the same intestinal problems that Wakefield did; Krigsman ended up leaving NYU shortly after, for reasons only he could explain.Â The alleged faking of data by Wakefield is much alleged, being started by Brian Deer in his complaint against Wakefield and subsequent reporting thereafter, but this was not one of the charges which resulted in the GMC striking him from the register in the UK.Â Walker-Smith (the only member of the original paper's team to not withdraw) was recently vindicated in British court when it was determined that he was not guilty of the charges Deer leveled against him.Â However, considering the heavy-handed tactics employed against Wakefield and Walker-Smith, including very public smear campaigns that quickly degenerated into specualtive innuendo, it is hardly surprising that the rest quickly disavowed, as they sought to save their careers.Â Â

The mistakes that many in the pro camp make is the assumption that actual scientific research has been conducted (as opposed to research that is more akin to marketting), that just because one vaccine has a good risk/benefit ration that all will likewise, and that the government agencies which steer the public program are being honest in their communication with the masses, PhD or otherwise.

To look at examples in other areas of our for-profit medicine...

We were told for three decades that Ritalin was perfectly safe for use in kids, and that people like Breggin who warned about risks were just cranks.Â Just a few years ago it came out that it did present risk of cardiac damage when used at theraputic labels, and now carries a black box warning.

We were told for two decades that the use of anti-depressants posed no risk to the developing fetus, and women were encouraged to continue use while pregnant.Â Now it comes out that the risk studies were actually not properly conducted/published and the television routinely runs ads about the list of birth defects they can cause.

Oxycontin was licensed with the understanding that it was non-addictive (!) despite being an opiate derrivative, and in fact has become the number one abused drug in many areas of the US.Â The FDA, when faced with the reality that they failed to ask any questions in this regard took the unprecedented step of working with law enforcement and the people responsible for the fraudulant application for licensed actually went to prison.

Atypical neuroleptics were licensed with the understanding that they were more effective and less dangerous than older neuroleptics like Haldol.Â They were put into heavy use, including in the developmentally delayed population (especially those in residential programs) and in the gerriatric population, and were marketed for off-label uses for which they were never tested.Â When it came to light that they were neither safer nor more effective than the early drugs, numerous states sued the makers and were awarded billions to compensate for these companies making excessive profits as a result of their fraud.

Speaking of vaccines in particular, there have been many instances of problems that have come to light that bring into question the term "relatively safe".Â Live virus vaccines can spread the virus they are supposed to be preventing (the OPV was found to be the source of the polio outbreak in MN several years ago; when they tried to bring back the smallpox vaccine after 9/11 medical personnel who received it could not be around patients for 3 weeks), the DTwP was so dangerous that it caused the NVICP to be formed and had to be phased out in favor of the less effective DtaP.Â In fact, a representativefrom the FDA testifying before a Congressional committee back in 2000 admitted for the record that less than 10% of vaccine adverse reactions were reported to VAERs, which only adds to minimize the risks that are there.

Effective is also a term which cannot be made in a encompassing way.Â The CDC's own testing found that the infuenza vaccine have not reduced hospitolizations among the elderly or infant, and have not reduced deaths among the elderly.Â The recent Cochrane review found that this shot was not justified as a public health program, and a subsequent analysis of published studies found that the reason it was presumed to be effective in the original studies had more to do with the fact that the people who got the shot lived healthier lives in general than those who did not get it.Â The use of theÂ varicella vaccine has caused the unexpected result of increasing the number of cases of shingles, which are also striking at a much younger age, leading to the CDC pushing for a zoster shot to be developed.Â Recent studies have found that the use of Prevnar (the first billion dollar vaccine)Â has not reduced the ear infections it was designed to protect against, because other strains of that family of virus simply filled the void.

Simply resting upon paternalistic attitude that those who question the increasing load of vaccines that are being suggested or mandated will do nothing to slow the doubt and dissent when there are too many false statements being made by those who are pro.Â Science, including medicine is supposed to be about the truth, even when the truth is bad for business or contrary to good intent.Â

And for the record, i am not anti-vaccine per se.Â There are vaccines that have been good successes (best example IPV) and there are those that have been bad choices, whether because they do not deliver the protection we want or because they have a bad risk-benefit.Â

The author of this puff piece states that in 2010 Idaho's rate of vaccination was perilously low...If vaccines prevent dire outbreaks of deadly diseases, where are all of the deaths and disabilities suffered by this supposedly seriously at-risk populace?! Â Why aren't people dying and being hospitalized in mass numbers? Â Oh yeah, vaccines are useless tools used by PhRMA to fatten their bottom line for your entire, sickened, lifetime...

A Harvard researcher just released research which clearly demonstrates that antibodies do not equal immunity. Â In reality, EXCELLENT HEALTH and NUTRITION = IMMUNITY!

If the Government really wanted a healthy populace, they would subsidize pure water, clean air, and copious organic food instead of corn syrup and vaccines and do-harm pharmaceuticals, and processed food-like products.

I have no problem with YOU and YOURS getting all the vaccines you wish; however, it is a medical procedure with known adverse side effects (which include death and lifelong disability) - this is a risk I choose to avoid...from the 30+ needles in baby's first 24 months of life...

Regarding the ticks: in the scenario with vaccination, liken them to the lifelong disability my two (genetically unrelated) children suffer as a result of vaccine injuries (4 months and 6 months of age, respectively);our tax dollars will be the birds --forever working to keep-up with meeting their lifelong needs. Â The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is a REALITY not a make-believe story.

Also of interest - my fully vaccinated child contracted a number of the diseases she was supposedly protected against, and her case each time was at least twice as bad as her partially vaccinated sibling's and her entirely unvaccinated sibling's. Â None of the children required hospital care, either; so much for the risks of not vaccinating. Â Also of interest, they contracted the diseases from their fully vaccinated classmates on every occasion!!!

"Interesting"Â logic Professor Tinker.Â When you swan around the world going to conferences in third world countries and trecking through countries like Thailand, where diphtheria is still endemic, do you think to yourself, "Oh no, I can't go to those countries because they don't have "herd immunity" for X, Y and D disease."Â No.Â If you are disease phobic, which most medical professors are, you hike down to the travel clinic and get certain selected shots, and sit there with a grin in your face, and think, "Now my trip will be so nice, and I won't get sick."

Similarly when Jonas Salk rolled out the SALK vaccine, people didn't sit around thinking, "This won't work unless we have herd immunity".Â They assumed that vaccines would give personal immunity.

Now, if you want to roll out the old lie about the unvaccinated, presenting huge dangers to the vaccinated, then you better sit down and consider just why you have vaccines when you are travelling.Â And also ask yourself the question about WHY the vaccinated are in such danger.Â Could it be that they eat crap and have a death-inducing lifestyle?

And if you are going to pull out the old matra of, "But the herd must protect theÂ too young, and the too sick", then that is also a double edged sword.Â Personally I don't think a person should vaccinate their healthy babies, or themselves,Â "just" to protect the "too young, too old and too sick".Â There is a raft of medical literature on the epigenetic role of nutrients in "disease causation" enough to fill your office and more, which if you taught to your patients would result in huge disease incidence decline, and you should know that, from Infectious disease history.

Before you decide I'm a healthy heartless "Darwinian", I've got a primary immunodeficiency, with serious allergy toÂ ALL antibiotics, which is what happens when doctors fill you up with stuff because they don't know what else to do when youÂ (used to) get sick all the time.Â My immunodeficiency, according toÂ your "manual"... "should" be treated with monthly IVIG, but in my opinion, no-one with any sense would use that stuff.

"Herd Immunity" has nothing to do with my health at all.Â What protects me most, under normal circumstances, is the fact that I get plenty of vitamin D, C and A;Â I don't eat sugar, donuts, refined anything, potato chips or any of the crap which loads about 95% of the average American's food cupboard.Â And if everyone else ate properly, then I predict, within a year, American hospitals work-loads would be cut by at least half, and quite a few doctors would be looking for different jobs.

WhetherÂ you vaccinate your children or not, has nothing to do with the core health of the rest of theÂ vaccinated.

And Juliette are you aware that vaccination has actually made mother's breastmilk less potent in protecting their infants?Â The IgA levels in vaccinated breastfeeding mothers for measles is in the basement. And vaccination in the long run has actually led to leaving the most vulnerable - the infants at the highest risk. Â Â If you back up and look at the bigger picture you will see that all in all vaccination has not been the gift to humanity that you think it is.Â I once had your exact viewpoint, until I read for about 1000 hours on vaccines.Â I suggest you do the same before you do any more damage. And as part of your reading I suggest you read a new e-book by a PhD immunologist called "Vaccine Illusion" available on amazon.Â That will be a minor start in clearing you brain. Â Dr Suzanne Humphries.

Breast milk is in humans is NOT a source of maternal antibodies into circulation, IgA or any other type.Â We differ from other mammals in this way. Human IgA in humansÂ combats enteroviruses.Â See: Transfer of antibody via mother's milk. Van de Perre P. Vaccine. 2003 Jul 28;21(24):3374-6.Â

In humans, maternal antibodies are pumped across the placenta to levels approximately 1.5 times the titer present in the mother. The half-life of maternal antibody averages 40 days. (There is some variation on both of those.)

Titer levels vary over time in ways that we do not fully understand. See: Duration of Humoral Immunity to Common Viral and Vaccine AntigensIan J. Amanna, Nichole E. Carlson, Mark K. Slifka, NEJM, 2007, 357:1903-1915

I don't believe vaccines cause autism, but I disagree with Professor Tinker on the politics when she speaks of "suckers that have expended the energy and cost to get vaccinated".Â When the cost of vaccines are mandated on an economically mixed population, this is a per capita tax, one which, however light for the well-to-do, may be onerous for the poorest.Â Before we can speak of those taking advantage of "suckers", we should first make basic reforms to ensure the positive right to health care for everyone.Â No matter what we think of the roundabout mechanisms of Obamacare, we can and should have a simple, straightforward method of delivering all required vaccinations to all children for free, should their parents desire it, without insurance, without financial paperwork, but simply as an amenity offered to those who are willing to do their part to protect the herd.

Once we separate the issue of choice from the issue of cost - something which our society regards as an unquestionable ethical mandate whenever it is the poor to be paid rather than paying, such as for the agreement to donate organs on death - _then_ we should still respect the choice of parents based on their perception of the risks.Â However foolish those refusing may be, they nonetheless, at the least, provide society with useful data, a control group for the effectiveness and risks of vaccines.Â Ultimately, our society cannot provide immortality to citizens - what we can provide are broad and fundamental rights, both to receive vaccines regardless of income and to refuse them regardless of scientific consensus.

Lancet's editors retracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis of non-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and University College London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccines and autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity, however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry-picked the documents, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and his coauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I made in this report. Wakefield has since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Since the Lancet study was published, others have confirmed the link between autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example, recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI disease and sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that, in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed for the first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as the allegations against him are proving to be false, will only further undermine public confidence in vaccine safety. Apparently, Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trusted Brain Deer, the BMJ, and theGMC. For all the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegationsof research misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are ofany research data and conclusions.

Thank you for posting this. The fact that the author continues to spout the talking points about Wakefield and was seemingly unaware of these more recent developments tells me that she is only superficially aware of the issues surrounding this topic, unlike those of us who actually "have a dog in the hunt", so to speak.

Lancet's editorsretracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chiefFiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis ofnon-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and UniversityCollege London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccinesand autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity,however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry picked thedocuments, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and hiscoauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I madein this report. Wakefieldhas since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Â

Since the Lancet studywas published, others have confirmed the link between

autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and

coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example,

recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that

gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and

may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI diseaseand sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that,in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed forthe first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMRvaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Â

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as theallegations against him are proving to be false, will only further underminepublic confidence in vaccine safety. Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trustedBrain Deer, the BMJ, and the GMC. Forall the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegations ofresearch misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are of anyresearch data and conclusions.

Lancet's editorsretracted the study by Wakefield et al. based on findings by the GeneralMedical Counsel (GMC), which were recently overturned by England's High Court of Justice[1,2]. Documents from the original study, which I provided to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) last year, prompted editor-in-chiefFiona Godlee to abandon Brian Deer's theory that Wakefield alone fabricated the diagnosis ofnon-specific colitis. In its place, she now alleges that the 13 authors, the Royal Free Hospital and UniversityCollege London all conspired to create an MMR scare to sell their own vaccinesand autism products. [3] My report to the U.K. Office of Research Integrity,however, presents evidence that Godlee and other editors cherry picked thedocuments, refusing to publish evidence that cleared Wakefield and hiscoauthors.[4] The High Court's ruling underscores a number of the points I madein this report. Wakefieldhas since filed suit against Deer, Godlee and the BMJ [5].

Â

Since the Lancet studywas published, others have confirmed the link between

autism and GI disease reported by Wakefield and his coauthors. Williams and

coworkers at ColumbiaUniversity and Harvard Medical School, for example,

recently cited papers by Wakefield and his coauthors and concluded that

gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported inchildren with autism and

may contribute to behavioral impairment.[6]. The only thingthat was 'wrong' with the paper was that the authors documented the fact thatsome of the patients' parents and doctors linked the onset of their GI diseaseand sudden developmental regression to MMR vaccination. It's worth noting that,in response to the documents I submitted to the BMJ, Dr. Godlee disclosed forthe first time that the BMJ Group is sponsored by manufacturers of the MMRvaccine, and has corrected previous editorials attacking Wakefield accordingly.[7]

Â

Continuing to attack Andrew Wakefield, even as theallegations against him are proving to be false, will only further underminepublic confidence in vaccine safety. Apparently, Dr. Tinker and others have blindly trustedBrain Deer, the BMJ, and the GMC. Forall the same reasons, scientists should be as skeptical of allegations ofresearch misconduct published in the scientific literature as they are of anyresearch data and conclusions.

Our children are already suffering--have you raised a child with autism? Our children are suffering from a metabolic disorder that affects every organ in their bodies.Â They have immune dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammatory bowel disease, encephalopathy, to name a few.Â Care to give an explanation for the now 1 in 88 children with autism, the 1 in 54 boys in the US, the 1 in 29 boys with autism in New Jersey?? It's not better diagnosing.Dr. WakefieldÂ is but one person who wanted a better testing of vaccines for safety.Â The safe vaccine movement in the US had nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield.Â It did have to do with tens of thousands of parents who took their normally developing children for vaccinations and soon they developed autism.We are fighting for all children and we are never going away.Â Maurine Meleck, SC

And yet, few pediatricians bother to check for the very contra-indicators such as allergy to vaccine compents or familial medical histories which put them at risk for adverse reactions.Â What is the point of having the product inserts to avoid uneccessary risk when they are largely ignored?

And newborns do indeed get vaccinated.Â The Hep B is given in the first 12 hours of life, despite be one of the riskiest shots and having no benefit to most of the infants which get it.Â

Â Thank you Dr. Moses. I agree with you. As the parent of a vaccine damaged child (nearly recovered), I am part of a growing group of parents and medical professionals who are challenging the logic and ideas in Juliette Tinker's article. The thin crusted facade of deceit, half-truths, and lies built by The American Academy of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and all other supporters of the child vaccine program is easily penetrated. What you find when you dig far enough is the truth. I found, as well as thousands of other parents, that the artificial over-stimulation of the immune system causes chronic illness. In our case it was autism. By the way,Dr.Andrew Wakefield is just one of many physicians who share this idea. The day will come when his case series will become a case study. Also, a ruling by a British judge cleared Dr. Andrew Wakefieldâ€™s colleague and co-author, Prof. John Walker-Smith of all charges against him that arose from their study of the relationship between gut disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine. The truth is coming out.

"Also, a ruling by a British judge cleared Dr. Andrew Wakefieldâ€™s colleague and co-author, Prof. John Walker-Smith of all charges against him that arose from their study of the relationship between gut disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine."However, in the initial study the link was claimed to be only between Vaccination and Autism.

If gut disease increases the risk, then we should be ruling it out before vaccinating. Not "not vaccinating" just in case the child has (a) gut disease.

Lol, are you an astrophysicist too? You're telling the author not to do exactly what you just did. Fortunately, this isn't a debate about global warming, and your strawman tactic has probably been noted. Then there's this...."Everyone knows that - according to the Special Theory of Relativity - it is impossible for particles to exceed the speed of light."What are you trying to achieve? It's never been concluded otherwise. You should really get your facts straight before trying to make a point with them, and especially before trying to tell someone they are destined to look like an idiot. Why does it that whenever someone says "respectfully" it always comes across as "kiss my a$$"?

Â A moot point: why do politically left evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins et al continue to skew unequal investment gains to mean "reciprocated altruism"? Triver's invented this popular but hopeless contradiction (if what is being reciprocated is a fitnesses positive it cannot possibly represent an altruistic reciprocation). All Dawkins et al can mean is what is being reciprocated wasn't equal so some gain more than others. Of course in the bankrupt lexicon of the political left, those that get more are definedÂ "selfish" while those receiving less "altruistic" even when both can be demonstrated to be gaining ABSOLUTELY (making a mockery of BOTH terms). The error here is simply enormous because it fails to be able to discriminate between actual altruism represented by an absolute loss to the donor and mutual investment gains represented by absolute gains to all which however, are not necessarily equal. In any valid mathematical representation these absolutes, which must be falsifiable absolute assumptions of nature NOT dictated absolutes, can only be represented by proposed fitness constants. None have ever been provided by Neo Darwinism. The Neo Darwinists that I talk with absolutely refuse to accept any criticism in this regard. The result: there is no constant frame of reference within all of Neo Darwinism.Â Thisis expanded within sci.bio.evolution moderated discussion in "What Is Your Frame Of Reference"?

When only comparing variables does NOT represent valid science because it happily reverses theory cause and effect allowing "anything goes". The only possible way to correct this Post Modern error is to compare all theory variables to a proposed falsifiable constant.

The author of this puff piece states that in 2010 Idaho's rate of vaccination was perilously low...If vaccines prevent dire outbreaks of deadly diseases, where are all of the deaths and disabilities suffered by this supposedly seriously at-risk populace?! Â Why aren't people dying and being hospitalized in mass numbers? Â Oh yeah, vaccines are useless tools used by PhRMA to fatten their bottom line for your entire, sickened, lifetime...A Harvard researcher just released research which clearly demonstrates that antibodies do not equal immunity. Â In reality, EXCELLENT HEALTH and NUTRITION = IMMUNITY!

If the Government really wanted a healthy populace, they would subsidize pure water, clean air, and copious organic food instead of corn syrup and vaccines and do-harm pharmaceuticals, and processed food-like products.

I have no problem with YOU and YOURS getting all the vaccines you wish; however, it is a medical procedure with known adverse side effects (which include death and lifelong disability) - this is a risk I choose to avoid...from the 30+ needles in baby's first 24 months of life...

Regarding the ticks: in the scenario with vaccination, liken them to the lifelong disability my two (genetically unrelated) children suffer as a result of vaccine injuries (4 months and 6 months of age, respectively);our tax dollars will be the birds --forever working to keep-up with meeting their lifelong needs. Â The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is a REALITY not a make-believe story.

Also of interest - my fully vaccinated child contracted a number of the diseases she was supposedly protected against, and her case each time was at least twice as bad as her partially vaccinated sibling's and her entirely unvaccinated sibling's. Â None of the children required hospital care, either; so much for the risks of not vaccinating. Â Also of interest, they contracted the diseases from their fully vaccinated classmates on every occasion!!!

The author of this puff piece states that in 2010 Idaho's rate of vaccination was perilously low...If vaccines prevent dire outbreaks of deadly diseases, where are all of the deaths and disabilities suffered by this supposedly seriously at-risk populace?! Â Why aren't people dying and being hospitalized in mass numbers? Â Oh yeah, vaccines are useless tools used by PhRMA to fatten their bottom line for your entire, sickened, lifetime...A Harvard researcher just released research which clearly demonstrates that antibodies do not equal immunity. Â In reality, EXCELLENT HEALTH and NUTRITION = IMMUNITY!

If the Government really wanted a healthy populace, they would subsidize pure water, clean air, and copious organic food instead of corn syrup and vaccines and do-harm pharmaceuticals, and processed food-like products.

I have no problem with YOU and YOURS getting all the vaccines you wish; however, it is a medical procedure with known adverse side effects (which include death and lifelong disability) - this is a risk I choose to avoid...from the 30+ needles in baby's first 24 months of life...

Regarding the ticks: in the scenario with vaccination, liken them to the lifelong disability my two (genetically unrelated) children suffer as a result of vaccine injuries (4 months and 6 months of age, respectively);our tax dollars will be the birds --forever working to keep-up with meeting their lifelong needs. Â The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is a REALITY not a make-believe story.

Also of interest - my fully vaccinated child contracted a number of the diseases she was supposedly protected against, and her case each time was at least twice as bad as her partially vaccinated sibling's and her entirely unvaccinated sibling's. Â None of the children required hospital care, either; so much for the risks of not vaccinating. Â Also of interest, they contracted the diseases from their fully vaccinated classmates on every occasion!!!

The author of this puff piece states that in 2010 Idaho's rate of vaccination was perilously low...If vaccines prevent dire outbreaks of deadly diseases, where are all of the deaths and disabilities suffered by this supposedly seriously at-risk populace?! Â Why aren't people dying and being hospitalized in mass numbers? Â Oh yeah, vaccines are useless tools used by PhRMA to fatten their bottom line for your entire, sickened, lifetime...A Harvard researcher just released research which clearly demonstrates that antibodies do not equal immunity. Â In reality, EXCELLENT HEALTH and NUTRITION = IMMUNITY!

If the Government really wanted a healthy populace, they would subsidize pure water, clean air, and copious organic food instead of corn syrup and vaccines and do-harm pharmaceuticals, and processed food-like products.

I have no problem with YOU and YOURS getting all the vaccines you wish; however, it is a medical procedure with known adverse side effects (which include death and lifelong disability) - this is a risk I choose to avoid...from the 30+ needles in baby's first 24 months of life...

Regarding the ticks: in the scenario with vaccination, liken them to the lifelong disability my two (genetically unrelated) children suffer as a result of vaccine injuries (4 months and 6 months of age, respectively);our tax dollars will be the birds --forever working to keep-up with meeting their lifelong needs. Â The difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is a REALITY not a make-believe story.

Also of interest - my fully vaccinated child contracted a number of the diseases she was supposedly protected against, and her case each time was at least twice as bad as her partially vaccinated sibling's and her entirely unvaccinated sibling's. Â None of the children required hospital care, either; so much for the risks of not vaccinating. Â Also of interest, they contracted the diseases from their fully vaccinated classmates on every occasion!!!

One area I see lacking in the comments (I didn't get through them all though) is safety pertaining solely to the ingredients. Many vaccines have mercury in them and most people are okay with giving them to their children, but then turn around andÂ severelyÂ limit the amount of tuna their families ingest. I'm not saying it's apples to apples there, but many parents don't think twice or even know what is on the ingredients list.Â

Another issue is the morality and wisdom of injecting cells from another human or even animal into the body.Â

I think the big thing for me is that most people will acknowledge that there is a population of people who for one reason or another cannot or should not be vaccinated, but until we vaccinate them and they have some serious side affect we don't know who those people are. That poses a big problem. I'd like to see some research toward creating a protocol determining which people shouldn't be vaccinated so we could reduce the number of people being harmed. Unfortunately from the little bit of research I've done I don't think it's possible to determine that status for most people until at least 1 year of age unless there is already a history in the family.